Talk:Classical definition of republic - Definition and Overview

Archive

/Excerpts from "Dangerous Positions" Trifunctionality

/Archive 1

SCANDAL SCANDAL SCANDAL

How is it that I had to read a book from 1839 in order to learn that Cicero called Sparta a republic?????? UHHHHH. How come both The OXFORD Classical Dictionary and The OXFORD Companion to Classical Literature has no reference at all to Cicero calling Sparta a Republic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am mad as Hell and smell scandal scandal scandal in the Classical world. There is not even one reference to "mixed government". Where in the hell is their research and their expertise??? Where?????????? I don't read Latin or Greek but these people do and in all their time and professionality, they couldn't put that information into their reference material??? What the Hell is going on. Only Harpers Classical reference book says anything about "mixed" government. Not even W. G. Forest in his A History of Sparta does he mention any of this. How come Paul Cartledge in his book on the Spartans doesn't mention this???? What the hell is going on???? Why did it take for me to read a book from 1839 to find this important information.

Oxford University with all this scholary degrees and professionality and none did this???? All their degrees in Latin, and Greek???? How come modern textbooks don't have this information???? I am told "only recent information allowed". Yes it took me to read 200 year old books, The Federalist Papers and the Muller's book on the Dorians, to find out this information. This is a major scandal of major proportions.WHEELER 15:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not done with the article by any means and it is going to take awhile still.WHEELER 15:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Original editor of Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, Harry Thurston Peck, wrote in his introduction of his work in 1896, of those Republics of Hellas and Rome and in the Article on Sparta the word "Commonwealth" is used. I have to read something 100 years old for the truth. Classicists a hundred and more years ago had all this information and agreement of terms many years ago. This is more that enough authority I have collected for the assurance of these terms.WHEELER 21:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have done a "google" search. The term 'mixed government' shows little. But add the word "Cicero" to "Mixed government" and boy oh boy there is a knowledge explosion. Wow, what information at one's fingerprints what an explosion of information backing everything up. This is great. I hope to no longer have any more trouble about the validity of my information. Wow.WHEELER 18:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I totally support the paper there in the bibliography of Prof. Kelly. It is in urbanization that brings corruption. It is the country people that have virtue and created Republican government or in the case of the Spartans and Cretans, they spent all their time out of doors and studied and observed nature.

What happens in urbanization is effeminacy. When men become effeminate they can't obey the law. The Law is hard. Only a Hard man can obey law. The Spartans & Cretans created hard men so that the law can be obeyed. Soft men can not be obedient.WHEELER 20:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Words, words, words

Just to clarify: the fact that Cicero used the phrase "respublica Lacedaemoniorum" does NOT mean that he was classifying Sparta as a "republic". Res publica in Latin meant primarily "the public good", secondarily "the state, or body politic". So "respublica Lacedaemoniorum" probably means what we would call the Spartan state, without any implication that it was or was not "republican". rossb 21:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are getting at? Can you please elaborate. If you checked out the "Occurences of the word", you would notice that Alexander Hamilton, who prided himself on knowing more about the Roman Republic than his Bristish counterparts, uses the term Lacedomonean commonwealth. Alexander also uses the term for Sparta. The Harpers Classical Dictionary also uses the same term for Sparta, i.e. "commonwealth". So, please elaborate. England, with all her kings and queens, was called a "commonwealth" which is the same word as "Republic".WHEELER 14:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

England was principally referred to as a commonwealth during the brief period of Cromwellian rule in the 17th century. But this has nothing to do with Cicero. Also you're equating the words "republic" and "commonwealth" - the two do indeed overlap in meaning, but are not the same in detail: the fact that Hamilton or a classical dictionary may have used the word "commonwealth" in connection with Sparta does not mean that it was a "republic" in your rather unusual use of the term, nor that Cicero thought that it was. I suggest you need to look beyond the words used to the actual context in which the original writers intended them to be understood. rossb 20:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But England before Cromwell was called a Republic and after the restoration was still called a Commonwealth with a monarchy at its head. Cicero visited Sparta as a young man. He called it a Republic. I am guessing that those Cromwellians got their defintion wrong and misapplied the term. Hamilton knew exactly what he was doing and saying. I suggest Mr. Burgess that you go down and read the Bibliography of the article. The Bibliography will set you straight. There are a few internet sites there for your enlightenment.WHEELER 16:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scandals, etc.

WHEELER, I don't think there is a conspiracy to hide Sparta being called a republic....I think the reason no mention is made of Sparta as a republic in the last 100 years is the same reason so many of us have asked you not to tinker with Republic. The word "republic" is now used in such a manner that it would be confusing to any modern observer to use it in reference to Sparta. Most see no need to perpetuate an archaic definition of "republic", and use other words to refer to governments such as Sparta's. I share your interest in things of the past, so I find it intriguing, but certainly I don't know how to advise you on the article. The article, in your most recent edits, has become more detailed (which I like) but also more and more POV -- it is now much more bold in asserting that America was modeled on this classical republic, which I see as a defensible position but by no means factual. I would beg you to be much more cautious in making assertions, and to take more time to research the positions that disagree with you (e.g., tell us that some scholars -- name them if possible -- have said the American form of government under the Constitution is a classical republic, and also note several scholars -- again named if possible -- who consider the government to be something different, if they do not simply come out and say that it is not a classical republic). Also, your most recent edits seem to indicate that a mixed government is only a mixture of the middle and upper classes, which I do not recall from my Aristotle -- I thought all three elements of the society needed to mix. Other comments will come when I have time, but I am not often expert enough to know what to say, other than that almost every edit you make adds two things to this article: cited knowledge and a clear POV. Eventually this will be a very well-researched essay on classical republics, but sadly I don't know that it is getting any closer to featured article status. I am sorry if this comment displeases you, but I have to be honest. Jwrosenzweig 00:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr Jwrosenzwieg will you please go down to the Bibliography and read the online internet sites there. I put them there for your enjoyment.WHEELER 16:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And to the both of you Machiavelli called Sparta a republic also!!!! Check his work on an online internet site also provided in the Bibliography. Please read. WHEELER 16:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I get the chance, I will look at the sites -- thanks for posting them. :-) And WHEELER, I don't know about anyone else, but I am very content to agree with you that Sparta was referred to as a res publica by many classical and medieval authors, and perhaps a few authors as recently as the early 1900s. All I'm saying is that English usage makes it almost impossible to use "republic" to describe Sparta here in the 21st century. The language changes whether or not we want it to -- even if I could explain to you what the original meaning of "gentleman" or "sinister" was to you, I think it would be reasonable for someone to tell me that continuing to use those words as they were historically defined will only confuse most modern people i am trying to communicate with. Jwrosenzweig 18:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification. I was worried there for a moment. That is why I used the term "Classical definition of republic" because it is the "Classical definition". To see the consequences of how this happened go see Culture defines politics.WHEELER 14:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Point of view

I've marked this article as pov. I'm not an expert on this area, but one doesn't need to be to see that it isn't neutral. See for example the last paragraph of the introduction.

This is an impressive piece of work, and I've glanced through the earlier discussion. I think the thing the main author should remember is that it doesn't matter how brilliant his insights or arguments may be, if he is arguing for a personal conviction, that is pov. All Wikipedia articles should contain a balanced account of existing perspectives on a subject, including perspectives which the writers are convinced are misinformed. Philip 22:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. The article is basically written by one person who is pursuing his own very idiosyncratic idea of what constitutes a "republican" form of government, and is using quotations from classical authors out of context. He may or may not have a valid point in what he is maintaining, but given that he is ploughing a lonely furrow here he ought perhaps to do this outside of Wikipedia, which is after all a vehicle for a neutral encyclopedic retelling of the facts, not for a single individual's controversial interpretation. rossb 23:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went to Philip's site to see what experience he has. He is an expert at crocket and golf. I am not going to answer a damn thing here Mr. Jwrosenweig. When I wanted to know how a word was spelled, my mom told me to look it up. Why doesn't Mr. Philip and Mr. Rossb and Mr. Jwrosenwieg read the footnotes and the Bibliography and read the book referenced under John Aylmer. Is that tooooo hard? I did my work and referenced it thoroughly. Why don't you read and quote something instead of making me do all the work. READ THE DAMN FOOTNOTES THAT IS WHERE THE REFERENCE IS AT. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN PUBLIC SCHOOL IGNORANCE AND OPINIONS. When you have read something and can quote it come back. WHEELER 00:57, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in only defining the subject clearly and succintly to prevent confusion and incoherence. It is going to be a complete and thorough history and definition so there is no mistakes anymore on what the heck is a republic. I have put a thorough listing of occurences of the word to actually define the word and concept. WHEELER 15:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Logic 101

If you had the money, do you go to a crappy dentist or do you go to the "best" dentist?

If you had the money, do you have a crappy contractor remodel your house or do you get the "best" contractor?

If you had the money, Do you drive a crappy vehicle or do you drive the "best" vehicle?

Does a contractor use a "Hugo" to haul his tools around or does he use the "best" vehicle to haul his tools around in like a truck?

Does a contractor use faulty diagrams and building plans or does he use the "best" building plans?

In Logic 101, people, if you had any commonsense, People follow and imitate the best. Duhhhh. Why do you think people imitated the Spartans and not the Athenians? Because maybe they were the best at it. That is why I put in Polybius's comment!!! Why because it is LOGIC 101, OR COMMONSENSE ! Why did people imitate the Spartans? Because they were commended throughout the ancient world. That's why. Why else would the Founding Fathers took so much material from Polybius?

When people crossed the Rocky Mountains a hundred and fifty years ago, did they hire the crappy guides or did they hire people who knew what the hell they were doing? In real life, crappy gets you dead. Nature only rewards the "best". WHEELER 15:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Polybius said, Sparta had the worst government and it stunk, do you believe for one minute that the Founding Fathers would have instituted mixed government? NOOOOOO. Only because Polybius praised it and others, (and due to their own natural characteristics) did they chose a mixed form over democracy. Do you understand now the importance of Polybius statement and its inclusion!!!!!! WHEELER 19:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How to authenticate statements 101

There is such a thing called footnotes. They appear at the end of a sentence to tell the reader where the information came from and the authentication of the material. When you read the definition of a republic, please be careful and look at the little bitty numbers at the end of the sentence and please looooooooook them up.WHEELER 15:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How dirty smelly knuckle-draggin' club-weildin' English barbarians got culture 101

The English had no philosophy, no political language at all. With the introduction of Greek and Roman Classics through the Catholic Church they acquanted themselves with philosophy and political language. The first three English Constitutionalists, were on the fringe group. They brought their people into contact for the first time political terms they gleaned from their Greek readings.

England had a government with no philosophy or political language behind it. Until John Aylmer and others started to introduce such language. When they did so, John Aylmer was the first to notice the similarities between Sparta and England which lead to the "Whig theory of mixed government". I already noted that England naturallly evolved that way as mixed. The protestant levellers under Cromwell destroyed the mixed government of England. It was restored after them.WHEELER 15:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Putting POV statement warnings

A contributor, who himself says, he is not sure what the hell he is doing, and an administrator backs him up and not me. That is a jolly good show! After I have proved my worth with countless examples of my knowledge---the administrator backs up the contributor that knows nothing. Thank you very much. I now understand.WHEELER 15:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please read

Please read the excerpts above from Dangerous Positions. England NATURALLLY EVOLVED into a mixed governemnt due to the trifunctionality present in the Indo-European races. Funny how the trifunctionality of the English government matches with the trifunctionality of the damn Doric Race in Crete and Sparta!!!! Theres a mighty conection there. Doric Greeks moved in always the same pattern—in three tribes. Their favorite religious item was the Tripod. Interesting. Why did the same form of government erupt in both Doric Greece and in England—because maybe Culture defines politics-----Duhhhhhh.WHEELER 20:04, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of the British constitution

Isn't it $^&*%#$#&* amazing that John Aylmer and others there isn't a single thing mention at all in this article. %(^**%^&^%&^ amazing? Hell no. Par for the course of obscurantism. This is sick people. How the hell do you write an article and not a single constitutionalist appears in the article itself? Professionalism? Honesty? Trustworthiness? Hell no. WHEELER 20:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of this definition

The purpose of this definition as said earlier is to define once and for all what is a republic and everything that pertains to it. Polybius said, probably very prophetic, that Sparta was the best and the world will not see another like her. Probably very true. A classical republic will never return because the cultural currents that created it in the first place will not be replaced. The people are too far gone.

One can not just wake up one morning and say, OH boy, let's make a republic. Can't be done. In order to understand the fullness of what it takes and all the parameters of what it means to be a republic I will put in the Philosophy of mixed government section of the definition. It is all necessary for understanding of the concept of a classical republic and all it entails. "Government is not a mechanical process, it is a living breathing entity." WHEELER 19:12, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)